header-logo header-logo

Criminal Litigation

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v Kepple [2007] EWCA Crim 1339, [2007] All ER (D) 107 (Jun)

Where the defendant is being tried in his absence but counsel continues to act, he should conduct the case as though his client were still present in court but had decided not to give evidence on the basis of any instruction he had received.

He is free to use any material contained in his brief and may cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call defence witnesses. Counsel is entitled to ask questions of prosecution witnesses in as much detail as he wishes based on his instructions, but without indicating what the defendant’s evidence might have been and in the knowledge that he will not be able to call evidence to contradict the answers given.

He is entitled to conduct cross examination on this basis in the hope of either showing that his absent client’s instructions are accepted by the witnesses or casting doubt upon the coherence or accuracy of their accounts.

Issue: 7279 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll